User talk:AFC Vixen

What a Brilliant Idea!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your novel idea to tweak the maps for the 2022 and 2026 FIFA World Cups, I award you this barnstar! — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Stadium and free photos

Hi, about your edit at Lusail Stadium, WP:NFCC policy #1 states: "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". Therefore File:Brésil vs Serbie.jpg at Commons is free and should be prioritized to be the main image on the article. The reason given by you, "(the file) illustrates more of the stadium's roof" is your opinion, but not enough to keep a NFCC file when there are several files of the subject under free licenses. Unless you have valid proof to consider that File:Brésil vs Serbie.jpg infringes Qatar's FoP policies (I think not because the stadium achitecture is not visible and the main subjects are the pitch and the people in grandstands), that image (or other hosted on commons:Category:Lusail Stadium) should be used instead. I'll be glad to hear your opinions about the topic. Fma12 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The image is free-use. Published under a compatible Creative Commons licence and uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia, the file is under the United States copyright law, which is a lot more lenient about freedom of panorama. On Wikimedia Commons, the files have to abide by the copyright law of both the country it was taken in and the United States, which is why File:Lusail Stadium.jpg stays on the English Wikipedia and does not get uploaded to Commons. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The image you uploaded is already hosted at Commons (commons:file:Lusail Iconic Stadium - 2022 FIFA WC.jpg) so it should be used instead so that is much bigger size and has better quality. Fma12 (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As the image was taken into the stadium and the main topics depicted are the players and supporters on grandstands, it does not infringe any Qatar's FoP. Fma12 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not the same image, but I do agree with the point you made and hope that if a deletion discussion on Commons arises, you will be there to help support a case against it. If you could upload this specific photograph (Source here) and add {{NoFoP-Qatar}} to the file page, that would be great. It has an angle better favoured for a crop. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to upload that image, I was also talking about this topic at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Adnen1985 and those files are apparently ok (you can leave your feedback if necessary). At less, there is no strong objections or support to delete them. Thank you. Fma12 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC has began

Just giving you a heads up that earlier tonight I posted the RfC on Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table. It was already added to the RfC listings under the Society, Culture and Sports umbrella and I additionally posted it on the talkpages of the wikiprojects for rugby union and rugby league. A couple editors have already added to the discussion. You should feel free to engage with them constructively and answer questions/concerns. Once the discussion has reached its conclusion in terms of activity you can post on Wikipedia:Closure requests to ask an uninvolved editor to close the RfC and identify a consensus. Thanks for your efforts and I wish you all the best going forward in your editing. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table

I see you requested that Template talk:2022–23 Top 14 Table not be deleted as being of importance to Module:Sports table. Unfortunately being at that specific title is causing some minor problems with other processes. Would it work to move that talk page to something like Module talk:Sports table/January 2023 RFC instead? Anomie⚔ 20:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that at all. I hope the "Sports table module" section above it is archived as well, since it is not only important context to the RfC, but also evidence of a certain user's behaviour, should I need to report them to the Administrators' noticeboard again. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved the talk page to that name. Anomie⚔ 21:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey you, have the decency to not be rude and actually mention me by name and not being smart by having conversations behind my back. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I genuinely do not understand what good explicitly mentioning you by name in this context would’ve done. Wouldn’t that have been more rude? Also, why would I deliberately lie about my intentions to an administrator? Anomie, did I do anything wrong here? — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

🤷 I don't see anything particularly concerning. Anomie⚔ 01:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion of splitting up Messi article

First off apologies. I jumped the gun (had only seen the split suggestion of moving club career to a separate article without seeing the further detail on talk of making it a summary on his main page). Wholeheartedly agree with this proposal. Its not been done before (on a footy bio) I don't think, but a topic of this size could do with it. We've had to trim the Messi article before, but your proposal would allow us to do that most effectively while still having sub articles to provide more club/international detail. Nampa DC (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s okay! Just be mindful in the future that on-page notices are part of the procedure of discussing proposed splits per WP:PROSPLIT, and that it’s not typically kosher to remove them before a consensus has been reached. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with user behaviour

I’m requesting some advice as to what course of action I should take in regards to two editors who have taken to personal attacks against me over disagreements on a talk page. In trying to reach some agreement over an issue, despite wording my arguments as politely and innocuously as possible, I’ve been told I’m lazy,^[1] been twice patronised for their perception of my knowledge of the subject matter,^[2][3] and even been given a very mean-spirited theory about my motives,^[4] all in a single talk page section. One of these editors and I had both previously been warned on civility for prior exchanges.^[6][7] I’m really tired and just want this to stop, so I can focus more on editing and not having to seek mediation and third opinions on every single issue because of a single editor’s staunch opposition to everything I do. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have warned the user. Further attacks/harassment should be reported to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Premiership Women's Rugby.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Premiership Women's Rugby.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Premiership Women's Rugby.png

A tag has been placed on File:Premiership Women's Rugby.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LucasKannou (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and invite

Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Messi club and international career split

There is pretty much a consensus that your suggestion is a good one (should have been accepted the first time round). Given you put forward the proposal would you like to have a crack at it? Both sections are pretty well written and sourced so retaining them in a sub article works well, but obviously they need to be condensed in the main article with the size issue. Nampa DC (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently awaiting a closure of the discussion by a third party. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should have added one to the Cristiano Ronaldo article too. That will help address the issues you raised in the banner at the top of the article. Thank you. Serrwinner (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm awaiting the Lionel Messi discussion to close. When it does, we can use it as a precedent for splitting the Cristiano Ronaldo article, too. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)